My cousin just went through a divorce, finally finalized after about four years. One of the children may require braces. He is only 12 years old. My cousin has limited benefits and the Fathers benefits do not cover braces. However, the children are covered under his new spouses benefits. She asked me if his new spouses benefits should come off the top of the cost or if he can use that for his portion since the new spouse is under no obligation to provide benefits to the children.

I really don't know... at first I thought yes it should come off the top but then I thought well maybe not because she isn't a parent and technically doesn't have to provide benefits to the children.

What are the thoughts on this? Dad thinks it shouldn't come off the top and mom thinks it should. Dad pays full CS and mom receives all tax benefits and write offs.

This is stuff lawyers won't tell you but I will. This is right from the software that lawyers use that they won't give the public access to. Does this help?

Subsidies and benefits from third party
Input the annual amount of subsidies and benefits received from a third party that the party receives towards his/her payment of special expenses (CSG, s.7(3)).
IMPORTANT: Any amount input here is NOT in addition to the special expenses paid for by the party, but is rather an amount that susidizes the special or extraordinary expense already incurred by the parent and set out above.
Examples of subsidies and benefits includes (ie. non-exhaustive):
 contribution from a grandparent or other third party;
 R.E.S.P.;
 scholarship;
 bursary.
Do not include the Canada Child Tax Benefit or GST refund, as these will be considered based on information already input. The software also considers income tax deductions and credits relating to the special or extraordinary expenses based on individual financial information previously input.
According to the CSG, special expenses are to be shared by the parties in proportion to their respective incomes after deducting from the expense, the contribution, if any from the child (s.7(2)), and after taking into account any subsidies, benefits or income tax deductions or credits (but not UCCB) relating to the expense, and any eligibility to claim a subsidy, benefit or income tax deduction or credit (but not UCCB) relating to the expense (s.7(3)-(4)).

From what I understood (and I dont know where I got this from), the new spouse is supposed to put the kids on in both relationships.

It would be in the ex's best interests to do so since they are still on the hook for a portion of the cost which means if the spouse can cover some of that, the final amount is reduced.

It would be interesting to find some actual information on this. Essentially a non-parent is is forced to be responsible for step children if they are required to place them on their benefits. I have my step kids on mine, it was never a question in my mind not to have them, even though my benefits are never touched because both parents have them covered. I do know if benefits are available to the parents they have an obligation to put the kids on their benefits but I'm not sure where the step parents would fall regarding this.

This is stuff lawyers won't tell you but I will. This is right from the software that lawyers use that they won't give the public access to. Does this help?

Subsidies and benefits from third party
Input the annual amount of subsidies and benefits received from a third party that the party receives towards his/her payment of special expenses (CSG, s.7(3)).
IMPORTANT: Any amount input here is NOT in addition to the special expenses paid for by the party, but is rather an amount that susidizes the special or extraordinary expense already incurred by the parent and set out above.
Examples of subsidies and benefits includes (ie. non-exhaustive):
 contribution from a grandparent or other third party;
 R.E.S.P.;
 scholarship;
 bursary.
Do not include the Canada Child Tax Benefit or GST refund, as these will be considered based on information already input. The software also considers income tax deductions and credits relating to the special or extraordinary expenses based on individual financial information previously input.
According to the CSG, special expenses are to be shared by the parties in proportion to their respective incomes after deducting from the expense, the contribution, if any from the child (s.7(2)), and after taking into account any subsidies, benefits or income tax deductions or credits (but not UCCB) relating to the expense, and any eligibility to claim a subsidy, benefit or income tax deduction or credit (but not UCCB) relating to the expense (s.7(3)-(4)).

S7 expenses are shared proportionally AFTER all deductions and benefits are included. If someone's health benefits cover part of the braces, the remaining part is what is shared between the two parents.

It would be nice to say that someone's benefits should cover their share of the expense and the other parent is on their own for their share, but really, that might make the difference between the expense being affordable at all. Would your cousin want the child to go without braces because of sharing the expense so unevenly?

As for the benefit being optional to use for a stepparent, why on earth would anybody decline to use it? That's like the stepparent purposely making things more expensive for their spouse, and turning down extra money from their employer.

If you marry someone with children, yes, you are now financially entangled with them, and should be expected to use your benefits for them.

S7 expenses are shared proportionally AFTER all deductions and benefits are included. If someone's health benefits cover part of the braces, the remaining part is what is shared between the two parents.

It would be nice to say that someone's benefits should cover their share of the expense and the other parent is on their own for their share, but really, that might make the difference between the expense being affordable at all. Would your cousin want the child to go without braces because of sharing the expense so unevenly?

As for the benefit being optional to use for a stepparent, why on earth would anybody decline to use it? That's like the stepparent purposely making things more expensive for their spouse, and turning down extra money from their employer.

If you marry someone with children, yes, you are now financially entangled with them, and should be expected to use your benefits for them.

Quoted and bolded for emphasis.

Benefits that cover the child do not form part of one parents contribution. They reduce the overall cost, which is then split proportionally to income.

My kid in on my wife's insurance. When a cost comes through, we run it through all our coverage, then split it with my ex.

S7 expenses are shared proportionally AFTER all deductions and benefits are included. If someone's health benefits cover part of the braces, the remaining part is what is shared between the two parents.

It would be nice to say that someone's benefits should cover their share of the expense and the other parent is on their own for their share, but really, that might make the difference between the expense being affordable at all. Would your cousin want the child to go without braces because of sharing the expense so unevenly?

As for the benefit being optional to use for a stepparent, why on earth would anybody decline to use it? That's like the stepparent purposely making things more expensive for their spouse, and turning down extra money from their employer.

If you marry someone with children, yes, you are now financially entangled with them, and should be expected to use your benefits for them.

Just to be clear it is my cousins ex who doesn't think his new spouses benefits should come off the top because she isn't financially responsible for the children.

If braces cost say $10,000 and moms benefits cover $1500 Dad thinks the $8500 should be split (which in this case is 75% Dad and 25% mom)... so dad would be responsible for $6375 and mom $2125... Dad then wants to use the $2500 his spouses benefits cover for his portion only which would bring his portion down to $3875... he thinks because he is paying more already he should be able to use the benefits for his advantage. They are not denying kids the benefits they are denying mom the benefit discount.

I guess at the end of the day if Dad doesn't provide benefit info for the step mom the only recourse is court?

What he wants to do is fraud and his new spouse could potentially lose her benefits.

Can you explain why she would lose her benefits? I agree with you as th family law rules state benefits come off the top but does this have anything to do with benefits? Obviously it would have to be ran through both parents benefits before the step parent. She would like something to back this up to send her ex and hopefully avoid court